Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;393942]I never said he didn't play well in last night's game. Please read the whole post before starting with the ad hominem attacks. I'm putting the question out there now that we've had Smoot back for (almost) an entire season.[/QUOTE]

Blah blah blah. You made a thread questioning how good Smoot is the morning after he shut down one of the NFC's best WR. That makes no sense. He is good enough.

I just wonder when everyone will realize we can't have All-Pros at every spot on the field.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

MY GOD - does anyone read the original post?

I'll wait till the offseason to ask.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=FRPLG;393949]Blah blah blah. You made a thread questioning how good Smoot is the morning after he shut down one of the NFC's best WR. That makes no sense. He is good enough.

I just wonder when everyone will realize we can't have All-Pros at every spot on the field.[/quote]

If anything this thread is just really bad timing.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=FRPLG;393949]Blah blah blah.[/quote]

Very articulate.

[U]For everyone[/U] - I'm guessing people feel this is a "pissing on my good feeling" thread. That wasn't my intent, so take that for what it's worth.

I still don't understand the backlash, but I can't argue with democracy. I wouldn't retract anything I posted, but I can see the timing was interpreted as bad. Just don't take it personally.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

on comcast they were talking about how this has been his best game since coming back. He has been a monster the last few weeks. I think he is playing fantastic right now. I am not saying he is a great player but i am just saying the last 3 weeks have been great.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;393952]If anything this thread is just really bad timing.[/quote]
I see people are feeling that. Can't get 'em all right.

HTTR!

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

smoot's had a year beyond my expectations of him. he's not suppose to be a no. 1 corner, but he's lined up against more than a few top wideouts throughout the year. he had an excellent game last night. no corners ever completely shut down their receiver- the guy on offense usually has the advantage and eventually a corner will bite on a play or two (if he's lucky). smoot has been money this season, especially with all the hits to the secondary.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

Uh, you do know Smoot is #27 and not #29 right? Is Fred Smoot a top 5 cover corner? No. Is he being paid like a top 5 cover corner? No. It's not like the Skins got rid of Bailey and decided to keep Smoot instead or something. You keep telling people to read your entire post, but why not think through the situation before making your post, particularly given the way Smoot played last night. Even if Smoot was a liability, which he is not, what remedy would you propose? Play more Leigh Torrence? Start David Macklin? Come on now.

No way is he a liability and I'd have to ask you who you think would be better? You're not going to get Asante Samuel or Marcus Trufant or anyone else of that ilk for the money they're giving Smoot. Plus, Smoot loves Washington, Washington loves Smoot and he's playing about 300% better here than he did in Minnesota. The very short answer to your question is, he's an asset, end of story, end of thread.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=BigSKINBauer;393956]on comcast they were talking about how this has been his best game since coming back. He has been a monster the last few weeks. I think he is playing fantastic right now. I am not saying he is a great player but i am just saying the last 3 weeks have been great.[/quote]

Yeah the past 3 weeks he's really stepped up his play.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;393962]Uh, you do know Smoot is #27 and not #29 right? Is Fred Smoot a top 5 cover corner? No. Is he being paid like a top 5 cover corner? No. It's not like the Skins got rid of Bailey and decided to keep Smoot instead or something. You keep telling people to read your entire post, but why not think through the situation before making your post, particularly given the way Smoot played last night. Even if Smoot was a liability, which he is not, what remedy would you propose? Play more Leigh Torrence? Start David Macklin? Come on now.

No way is he a liability and [U]I'd have to ask you who you think would be better[/U]? You're not going to get Asante Samuel or Marcus Trufant or anyone else of that ilk for the money they're giving Smoot. Plus, Smoot loves Washington, Washington loves Smoot and he's playing about 300% better here than he did in Minnesota. The very short answer to your question is, he's an asset, end of story, end of thread.[/quote]

Probably nobody (yes, that's in my original post, too). :D

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=itvnetop;393959]smoot's had a year beyond my expectations of him. he's not suppose to be a no. 1 corner, but he's lined up against more than a few top wideouts throughout the year. he had an excellent game last night. no corners ever completely shut down their receiver- the guy on offense usually has the advantage and eventually a corner will bite on a play or two (if he's lucky). smoot has been money this season, especially with all the hits to the secondary.[/quote]

True, remember he was supposed to be the nickel guy until Rogers got hurt. He's really stepped it up.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

Here are the facts IMO.... Our starting CB got hurt (Rodgers) so we have had to play our backup (Smoot) who is playing better than most starting CBs for other teams. Everyone complains about depth, but at Corner we have had it this year. Thank goodness for Smoot and Todd Collins as quality back-ups. Otherwise we would be 5-9 right now and thinking about next year. Smoot and Collins (again, quality backups) are a big part of our last two wins in my opinion.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

Smoot's filled in pretty damn well for Carlos Rogers, I have no complaints whatsoever. If everyone were healthy I'd still have Springs and Rogers as the #1 and #2, and have Smoot in on Nickel packages.

For being the #3 CB, he's filling in admirably. He also brings the "intangibles" to the team, namely a lot of fire, attitude and energy.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

I thought Smoot played a great game last night. He's not a probowl cb, but he's pretty solid most days. One of his best games last night though.

Re: Fred Smoot - asset, liability, or neither?
 

[quote=scowan;393970]Here are the facts IMO.... Our starting CB got hurt (Rodgers) so we have had to play our backup (Smoot) who is playing better than most starting CBs for other teams. Everyone complains about depth, but at Corner we have had it this year. Thank goodness for Smoot and Todd Collins as quality back-ups. Otherwise we would be 5-9 right now and thinking about next year. Smoot and Collins (again, quality backups) are a big part of our last two wins in my opinion.[/quote]

Good point. As a backup, he is absolutely asset. Even as a starter, I'd probably have to say he's an asset, although that's a results-oriented analysis.